PETA

Do their extreme tactics go too far?

A fur-wearing model is pelted with blobs of blood; a nubile, naked woman says
she'd rather be bare than wear fur; fast food chains are denigrated with murder;
billions of farm animals are murdered in conditions likened to concentration
camps. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is known more for
controversial campaigns such as these than for its role as a premiere American
nonprofit. Not only are Americans ambivalent about PETA's role and animal rights
in general, but some argue the organization's controversial tactics continually
create public relations crisis that threatens to harm the entire animal rights
movement, along with nonprofit organizations committed to the animal liberation
cause.

"The world's largest and best known animal rights organization" is
also "the most successful radical group in America" (Specter, 2003),
and is dedicated to wholeheartedly stopping widespread torture and abuse of
nonhuman animals. Founded two decades ago by Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's
controversial leader, the group's tactics are often grossly offensive; with an
outrageous publicity formula that detractors say does more harm than good.
Controversial advertising campaigns such as the recent "Holocaust on Your
Plate," makes a detailed comparison between "human genocide and the
treatment of animals" that's deliberately designed to "garner as much
attention as sympathy." (Mnookin, 2003) Condemned by nonprofits such as the
Holocaust Memorial Museum, Anti-Defamation League, and hundreds of others as
offensive, irresponsible, attention-getting stunts, PETA has offended so many
people since its inception, according to a recent article in the New Yorker
(Specter, 2003) that "just to hear the word PETA is enough to make many
people shudder." But are PETA's schemes so shocking that they repel those
whom they wish to attract? Are the twenty-year old nonprofit's tactics adversely
affecting the small percentage of nonprofit organizations actually working to
protect animals? What's the actual impact of so much negative publicity on this
radical group and the animals it seeks to protect?

PETA's controversial campaigns have worked to the organization's advantage,
Specter (2003) reports, quoting philosopher Peter Singer, whose book
"Animal Liberation" (1975) is both widely credited as starting the
animal rights movement and impelling Newkirk to start PETA. While Newkirk
constantly risks alienating and offending people - even her constituents-through
radical campaigns, she believes her tactics work overwhelmingly for the good of
both the organization and the nonhuman animals PETA fights to protect. PETA's
passionate pursuit to protect nonhuman animals is uncompromising, and perceived
public relations calamities work for the benefit of both PETA and its social
justice mission. Newkirk's response to the PETA controversy reveals not only the
type of trademark candor that makes PETA both respected and reviled, but her
commitment to the organization's overall mission. "The truth is that
extremism and outrage provide the fundamental fuel for many special interest
groups," Newkirk said. "We are complete press sluts. It is our
obligation. We would be worthless if we were just polite and did not make any
waves" (Specter, 2003).

"Breathless in its mission" (Specter, 2003), PETA's response to a
potential publicity predicament is reflected in its thirteen-word mission
statement -- "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for
entertainment" - and embodies the extremism the organization is known for,
along with its passionate conviction to abolish all forms of animal cruelty. And
no where does PETA's passion prove more powerful than their current
concentration on American corporations' annual rendering of billions of cows,
chickens, pigs, and more into meat. As PETA believes this is the most widespread
and heinous abuse of animals, Newkirk continually meets with dozens of top PETA
strategists to actualize the first part of their mission: making Americans
"meet their meat" and make the connection between the sentient
creature confined in a factory farm and what's for dinner. While Newkirk has
been called many things in her long career with PETA, and has the "popular
image of a monster" (Specter, 2003); she exemplifies the ideals of
successful nonprofit leadership, as nonprofit organizations are reflections of
their leaders (Steckel Lehman (1997), particularly those with the
vision and passion to take an idea and turn it into a social reality. As the
leader behind one of the nation's most successful animal advocacy groups,
Newkirk and her mission are living proof that social justice movements must
always have "somebody radical enough to alienate the mainstream. For every
Malcolm X there is a Martin Luther King, Jr., . . . and Newkirk and PETA provide
a similar dynamic for groups like the Humane Society of the United States'
(Specter, 2003).

PETA's passionate conviction to social change is more than a focus on
notoriety, however; controversial campaigns not only grab the public's
attention, but also play a major role in capturing public support for animal
rights in general. And support is growing. As the best known animal rights group
on the planet, PETA raises more than fifteen million dollars annually, primarily
from individual donations from its seven hundred and fifty thousand members and
supporters, all of which finds its way into PETA's plethora of departments,
websites and international campaigns (Specter, 2003).

Despite the potentially lethal impact of PETA's extreme public relations
schemes - on both the animal liberation movement and nonprofits committed to
this cause - PETA's increasingly radical behavior and publicity stunts embody
the challenge confronting the nonprofit sector that is based as much on
politics, philosophy, and morals as economics. And nowhere is PETA's push for
change realized more than in Corporate America. Bowing to PETA pressure,
McDonalds became the first major company in United States history to require its
suppliers to humanely treat animals, followed by Burger King, Safeway, and
Wendy's. When it's considered that Americans slaughter nine billion animals each
year, primarily for food, PETA's progress in affecting the moral shift in
attitudes toward nonhumans is mind-blowing (Specter, 2003).

PETA' s revolutionary blend of advocacy, passionate leadership, and
commitment to social change exemplifies the best in American advocacy through
the nonprofit sector. America's best nonprofits are sharply committed to their
cause, and rely on common factors such as innovation, creativity and committed
leadership. (Steckel Lehman, 15-17, 85). PETA's use of publicity and
controversy has impacted all nonprofit organizations dedicated to animal issues
by raising public awareness on the unspeakable cruelties afflicted on nonhuman
animal. Desperate means call for radical measures for those fighting to stop
animal suffering. And with major corporations to the United States government
taking animal issues more seriously - along with an increase in awareness about
animal rights in general -- PETA finally seems to be "having it their
way."